Today’s biggest tech companies began as disrupters: an online alternative to bookstores (Amazon), a new way of searching for information (Google), and a revolutionary new computing device (Apple).

These companies changed the paradigm. They threatened the status quo and let consumers judge the benefits for themselves. And they succeeded because the U.S. Constitution, legal and regulatory framework gave them the flexibility to compete, grow and innovate.

Landmark decisions such as Sony Corporation of America vs. Universal City Studios, Inc. — commonly called the Betamax case — allowed innovators to create technology that allows the free flow of ideas and commerce. Thanks to Betamax, you can record your kid’s soccer game, your best friend’s wedding or your favorite television program. As long as your recording is for private and “fair use,” you are in the clear — no need to fear crippling copyright infringement lawsuits.

The precedent set by Betamax enabled many innovators to create the services and social and digital platforms we use every day. And the principle behind that precedent — a commitment to ingenuity and liberty — has enabled our nation to lead the globe in innovation.

Sadly, these principles and precedent are under attack — from both sides of the aisle. The Democrats’ midterm party platform includes antitrust policies that appear to target our world-leading American tech firms. And at least one iconic Republican has brought similar arguments: Newt Gingrich, historically supportive of innovation and deregulation, recently compared tech platforms to a “gigantic utility,” and called for a crackdown on companies. More, the far-right thought leader Steve Bannon has attacked the big tech companies he views as too liberal.

This call for the government to cripple or cleave these American crown jewel companies and the suggestion that the services these companies provide be treated like utilities is the financial equivalent of suggesting we give back Alaska to the Russians.

First, a utility is usually a monopoly. Because of nature and huge capital investments, most utilities (think electricity, natural gas, water and sewage) are natural monopolies. By contrast, tech companies are fierce competitors with low barriers to entry. You can socialize online on a variety of platforms: Facebook, Google, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn and Reddit. We shouldn’t confuse company success and consumers choosing great services with a natural monopoly.

Tech companies don’t represent a sinister monopoly stomping on consumer choice. In fact, search engines such as Google empower consumers, providing information on varying products and companies. And small businesses can compete globally, thanks to the power of these search engines. And users always have options: You can use TripAdvisor or you can use Yelp; you can pick Instagram or you can pick Snapchat — or both. And as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things evolve, there will be even more ways to search for and share information online.

History shows that almost every well-meaning attempt to attack successful tech companies will fail or prove unnecessary. Efforts were made against IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Qualcomm — yet each of these companies reinvented themselves and the alleged monopoly was short-lived. The closest arguable success was AT&T, but just a few years afterwards it came back as a nationwide provider.

Think of the fleeting successful “monopolies” in wireless phones: Motorola, Palm, Blackberry, Nokia and now Apple. Each dominated for a time, but the free market is harsh to those complacently relying on a cash cow for too long. And in telecom, the massive capital investment is huge.

Less so with any software-based internet service. The barriers to entry barely exist, and anyone with a better idea for nominal investment can topple the dominant company of the moment.

An American government should not crush innovators and stymie the free flow of information. China bans Google, Twitter and Facebook and increasingly restricts Apple. This is not what Americans want. We saw this with Congress’ unsuccessful 2012 SOPA/PIPA legislation. When faced with the possibility of limited choice and access online, millions of consumers banded together to speak out against well-intended but ultimately unhelpful rules — showing just how deeply Americans want ingenuity and liberty.

Hurting tech companies because of their success is an unnecessary attempt on the part of the policymakers at the state and federal level to pick winners and losers rather than letting the market do its work. The European Union frequently takes this approach, adopting aggressive regulatory tactics that stifle innovation.

This is why few of the world’s major tech companies hail from the EU. Other than SoundCloud and Spotify, how many can you name? The EU’s hostile regulatory environment makes it nearly impossible for startups to get off the ground, forcing established companies to invest in lawyers rather than research and development and new hires.

An open and free internet is our nation’s greatest strength — and it remains essential for democracy and a competitive market. America’s biggest successes have come when government has chosen pro-growth policies that eliminate restrictive and unnecessary rules.

By giving innovators and entrepreneurs the freedom to succeed, develop new platforms and design new solutions, our country will prosper.

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Technology Association.